Majesty, I think a forum debate is more flexible. If either one of you close out of a yahoo chat session the conversation is lost to you, unless you are constantly keeping logs. On a forum it's more convenient because the discussion can go for days and weeks at a time without losing any content. It would also be easier to go over previously brought up points in a forum discussion than it would be in a chat discussion.

I will create a thread for the debate in this area. I'll call it WLC Style Apologetics Debate for lack of a better name. Only the members invited to debate will be allowed to post in the thread to keep it focused. Any other posts will be moved to this thread, which we'll leave as the WLC Style Apologetics commentary thread.

So far the invited members debating are

Majestykcrady

Any other requests to be involved should be posted here so we can clear it with the debaters.

I will create a thread for the debate in this area. I'll call it WLC Style Apologetics Debate for lack of a better name. Only the members invited to debate will be allowed to post in the thread to keep it focused. Any other posts will be moved to this thread, which we'll leave as the WLC Style Apologetics commentary thread.

So far the invited members debating are

Majestykcrady

Any other requests to be involved should be posted here so we can clear it with the debaters.

Thanks.

I'm content with just watching. Is there any seating left up front?Will spectators be allowed to view the new thread? Thx.

Edit: oops, that was fast. I see the answer is yes. Thx.

« Last Edit: December 15, 2009, 04:26:06 PM by 13UnderTheGun »

Logged

The more we learn about the heavens, the more we realize that Heaven is imaginary.

From one US military veteran to another -- welcome to this forum. I retired from the Air Force six years ago. While we don't share similar theological views, you and I at least share a common bond of military service to this country. Let that be a cause of mutual respect between us.

As for your debate, understand that we've recently done this with a poster called Fran who used WLC's arguments to try to convince us that Jesus was resurrected from the dead and that this supposed resurrection proves that God exists. Fran tried to show this to us all during three attempts that he has carried out over the last year or so. He failed each time, and he's currently on some kind of hiatus from here, something he does every time he fails to prove his point. Maybe he'll return to lend you his support.

You didn't mince words in your introduction, but I caution you to not enter so boldly into the debate you may encounter here. While you feel you're in the superior position, your opposition here has a different view. It's likely that this debate will end as so many have before, with neither side swayed enough to alter their views. Part of that probably stems from stubbornness, but for nonbelievers, much of that comes from the inability of theists to put forth reliable and testable evidence to support their views about deities. Your greatest disadvantage in this debate will be the complete lack of physical evidence that reliably points to the existence of at least one deity. That makes all arguments for deities merely philosophical exercises that can, at best, serve to convince audience members who want to believe in deities, but routinely fail to compel skeptics to accept that a god exists. Perhaps you'll be the maverick who comes up with something new that is so compelling that we of reasonable minds can no longer accept our atheism. Or perhaps not. If you stick to WLC's line of reasoning, you're not that maverick.

Well good luck! Good to see somebody proposing a proper debate...so far, I like this guy's attitude. I'll be keeping an eye on the thread to see where it goes. I'll be interested in see straight and honest answers and for people to admit they can't answer a question when they can't answer it instead of coming up with some 2-bit bollocks and for people to be open minded about their opponent's argument. It happens rarely, so lets see how it goes.

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

You seem like someone who really LIKES to discuss these issues. Most christians visiting here immediately become defensive (and the few who don't begin long theologic harangues or post walls of biblical quotes).

As a pre-debate warmup and audience titillator would you like to discuss one very clear, well-defined, and relatively simple issue?

It's this: a couple of believers here recently have made comments saying that god knows EVERYTHING, e.g., he knows everything every person will do (for instance, he knows which ones will decide to accept him and which won't), and those believers ALSO say that god has given people free will--so that they can choose to follow god.

Non-believers have pointed out that god's perfect omniscience over human behavior vs. people's free will form a contradiction: If somebody's actions are perfectly predictable (i.e., they CAN'T vary from a course that's already known) then they don't have free will, as claimed. If they DO have free will, as claimed, then god can't be omniscient--people could surprise god with their unpredictable decisions.

Can you tell us what you think about this disagreement, and how you see the facts?

I would consider Craig to be one of the worst christian apologist in existence. Comparable to Strobel, McDowell, and D'Souza. He relies heavily on philosophical arguments and personages that are not of his own work as an argument ( Alvin Plantinga ) and often lies about modern science as part of his apologetic material. He is also a contributor/sponsor of many anti-science creationist groups ( such as the discovery institute ).

His only meaningful contribution was the Kalam Cosmological argument, where he insisted a time before time exists in order to imply 'purpose'. It still stands in circular contradiction like the original cosmological argument, but that doesn't seem to bother craig.

To be honest, you're going to have to do something more then puppet a person that is as unconvincing as Craig.

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Majesty, welcome. If you haven't already, I would suggest viewing all of kcrady's past posts here and also those in his blog in order to get a better idea of who your opponent is and how he debates. He is quite the handful and if you take him lightly, he will mercilessly pick your argument apart. In short: Know your opponent, be prepared, and take your time.

You seem like someone who really LIKES to discuss these issues. Most christians visiting here immediately become defensive (and the few who don't begin long theologic harangues or post walls of biblical quotes).

As a pre-debate warmup and audience titillator would you like to discuss one very clear, well-defined, and relatively simple issue?

It's this: a couple of believers here recently have made comments saying that god knows EVERYTHING, e.g., he knows everything every person will do (for instance, he knows which ones will decide to accept him and which won't), and those believers ALSO say that god has given people free will--so that they can choose to follow god.

Non-believers have pointed out that god's perfect omniscience over human behavior vs. people's free will form a contradiction: If somebody's actions are perfectly predictable (i.e., they CAN'T vary from a course that's already known) then they don't have free will, as claimed. If they DO have free will, as claimed, then god can't be omniscient--people could surprise god with their unpredictable decisions.

Can you tell us what you think about this disagreement, and how you see the facts?

No doubt i sure can. Lets say, hypothetically, that i am an omniscience human being. And, i take my son to a toy store, and i tell him to get whatever he wants, Daddy will pay for it. And my son proceeds to get whatever he wants. Now my question to you is, Despite the fact that i know that my son will get a Xbox 360, does that in ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, stop my son from FREELY choosing what he wants? I think the answer is obviously no. My son can freely walk throughout the store and get whatever he wants, despite whether i know what will get, or not. Foreknowledge does not contradict free will.

God, in his omniscience, knows exactly what we will do, and he is not surprised by anything. How can you be surprised about something you already know? God, in his ominscience, also knows what will happen if we DONT do something. The best example i ever seen that illustrates both God's omniscience and Gods omnipresence, was if you draw a 10in horizontal line on a piece of paper, with an arrow on each end of the line, the line on the left represents the past, and the one on the right represents the future, and place a dot in the middle of the line and that will represent the present. Now on that same sheet of paper, draw some eyes at the top, with the eyes looking down at the line. The eyes can see the past, present, and future. I think thats a decent example.